Does this look like a musket to you? Because it's not

Does this look like a musket to you? Because it's not.

In case none of you realized it, the second amendment was written in 1776, long before we had assault rifles or any kind of modern weaponry. All they had were muskets. Now, you honestly want to tell me that the second amendment should apply to modern guns? I'm not buying it.

There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having military style assault weapons and it's about time our nation stops pretending they would have.

Other urls found in this thread:

firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-kalthoff-repeater.html?m=1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Does this look like a printing press?

Better revert to ONLY printing leaflets for manual distribution and GTFO the Internet.

low effort slide thread that subverts and distracts discussion on Sup Forums. Does 1A only apply to parchment paper?

Sage

Back then - citizens had muskets, military had muskets.
Today - citizens have assault rifles, military have assault rifles.

There's no way the founders would have been alright with you being such a faggot, but here we are and you still have a first amendment right.

This is some low-tier b8. sage'd.

You conspiratards always talking about slides. First of all, no one is talking about slides here. Second of all, there is more than enough room in the catalog for my thread.

Either way, stop bitching and have a rational discussion about the gun issue.

These are all bait threads. It’s annoying but whatever. The founders wanted the people to have superior firepower over the government. If the primary weapon of war is a musket, they would want the citizenry to all have muskets. So yes, they would have wanted civilians to have assault rifles today, and probably more advanced weaponry also. I agree that in the nuclear age, we have to amend the constitution to disallow the public to have nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, however they should be armed well enough to keep the government from excercising close quarters dominance over the population. For now, as proven in Afghanistan, a government cannot use advanced weaponry to control armed populations at the local level. The minimum requirement to maintain this bulwark against the government is the assault rifle.

You know this faggot. It’s why you want the guns.

If they had Ar15s they would still put the exact wording in it! WTF dont you understand?! Muskets were the top of the line military guns back than!? Are you fucking retarded?

>Are you fucking retarded?
Well, judging by this...
>You conspiratards always talking about slides. First of all, no one is talking about slides here.

...the answer is most certainly "yes". Bump denied,

>All they had were muskets

But that's wrong.

They had hand cranked repeater rifles that could fire 30 rounds in about a minute or less.

>Does this look like a musket to you? Because it's not.
Our firearm rights aren't subject to firearm types.

>In case none of you realized it, the second amendment was written in 1776, long before we had assault rifles or any kind of modern weaponry. All they had were muskets.
Our firearm rights aren't subject to the age of the document protecting our firearm rights.

>Now, you honestly want to tell me that the second amendment should apply to modern guns?
Our firearm rights aren't subject to what the second amendment says or doesn't say.

>I'm not buying it.
Our firearm rights aren't subject to your personal beliefs.

>There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having military style assault weapons and it's about time our nation stops pretending they would have.
Our firearm rights trump your feelings.

>You conspiratards always talking about slides. First of all, no one is talking about slides here. Second of all, there is more than enough room in the catalog for my thread.
Our firearm rights aren't subject to your shilling or sliding.

>Either way, stop bitching and have a rational discussion about the gun issue.
Our firearm rights aren't up for debate.

Slide reply

This is not a bait thread because it's not. I have shot a gun before and I used to own a hunting rifle. I sold it after I had my first daughter. Guns are fun, but they are also dangerous.

>assaultriflepictureforbait.jpg

some dipshits have been buying autospammers to continually post low quality garbage threads. Anyone who's been here longer than a week has seen this shit at least a half dozen times.

>I have shot a gun before and I used to own a hunting rifle.
Our firearm rights are not subject to your personal firearm experience.

>I sold it after I had my first daughter.
You supposedly love your daughter yet you don't want to defend her from the evil people in the world? You're a coward. And worse, you're a bad parent.

>Guns are fun, but they are also dangerous.
Our firearm rights are not subject to your personal views of danger.

>1st amendment only applies to printed mediums
>2nd amendment only applies to muskets
>3rd amendment only applies to log cabins
>etc

Top tier logic OP

Oh shit didn't even notice that. Yeah, get fucked OP.

lol holy shit. I didn't catch that either. What a faggot OP is.

>This is not a bait thread.

Then have you heard of the Kalthoff Repeater? A gun from the 1600s that could fire a round per second?

firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-kalthoff-repeater.html?m=1

Your entire argument is moot.

>he posted it again.
please let this be the last (You)

1). The second amendment was not written in 1776.

2.) Even in 1776 they had arms that were modern for 1776 standards.

3.) Most soldiers in the revolutionary war were required to supply their own weapons.

>There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having military style assault weapons and it's about time our nation stops pretending they would have.
Muskets were military style weapons.

If you want to ban "assault weapons" for the civilians then you need to ban them for the military as well.

Please, kill yourself.
Seriously. Do it tonight.

SAGE

...

>musket
Does the government use muskets faggot?

Accept we do not have assault rifles. Public only has access to semi-automatic firearms that look dangerous. Military and some government agencies has full-automatic true assault weapons available. Well, unless a individual has enough money to pay the stamp tax and the price of a automatic weapon. But that is financially out of reach for most.

The first amendment was written in 1776, before someone was retarded enough to come with the idea of communism.

There's no way the founders meant for you to be able to talk about and spread communism without being hung, and it's about time our nation stops pretending that they would have.

S H A L L

...

Only as dangerous as the idiot holding it

NOT

Privateers could own their own warships armed with cannons when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment. They knew what they were doing

...

Does this look like a piece of paper and a pen to you? Because it's not.

In case none of you realized it, the first amendment was written in 1776, long before we had assault shitposters or any kind of modern communication. All they had were papers and their voices. Now, you honestly want to tell me that the first amendment should apply to modern trolling devices? I'm not buying it.

There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having military style assault weapons and it's about time our nation stops pretending they would have.

KYS OP

Guns were guns. There was no distinction between military guns and civilian guns. Those that were armed, were armed with personal rifles. Not military rifles.......

>Our firearm rights aren't subject to firearm types.

lolwut. you're outing youself as nogunz.

They lived in a time where rifles were beginning to overtake muskets. They knew that technology advanced and would continue to advance. We know that we may one day guns that fire smart ammunition capable of maneuvering ariund cover may be commonplace, we can even imagine man portable railguns and laser weapons. Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone in the past was too dumb to think about the future. We do it and they did it too.

Does this look like a 2 term president to you? Because it's not.

In case none of you realized it, the twenty second amendment was written in 1776, long before we had assault Presidents or any kind of "grab em by the pussy" conservatives. All they had were old trannies in powdered wigs. Now, you honestly want to tell me that the 22nd amendment should apply to Presidents THIS AWESOME??? I'm not buying it.

There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having only 8 years of Trump and it's about time our nation stops pretending they would have.

>the founding fathers were retards who did not anticipate any kind of technological advances in weaponry.

>In case none of you realized it, the twenty second amendment was written in 1776, long before we had assault Presidents or any kind of "grab em by the pussy" conservatives. All they had were old trannies in powdered wigs. Now, you honestly want to tell me that the 22nd amendment should apply to Presidents THIS AWESOME??? I'm not buying it.

Well other than the date being wrong, it's excellent bait because it's true. Just because a law is OLD it doesn't mean it's WRONG.

>2A written in 1776

It was written in 1789

Fake and gay

saged

When slavery was outlawed they didn't expect niggers to be praised for murdering cops. It's time to revisit slavery laws I think.

Gay thread with a fag OP.
sage

underrated

Need it to shoot niggers

Armed civilians reduce the propensity for malevolent government action, without even having the capacity to defeat it.

Only weapons that are not able to easily discriminate between targets and bystanders are illegal.
I know this might be news for a lib, or nigger, but you should be able to trust your countrymen enough for them to not kill you.

It looks like the modern equivalent, yes.

...

I'm getting one but I would like to get full walnut stocks and a drum magazine.

Any advice is appreciated.

copy pasta bot
sage

love this Jap

still sage

I am not a bot. See? I'm responding to you, aren't I?

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with Sup Forums is a shill, slide, or a bot? You guys are too paranoid.

This. I'm sick of this "You really think the founding fathers wanted us to have weapons of war?" Well muskets were the weapons of war of the era and they were cool with it, so yeah they clearly did you retards.

You should be arguing for better culture and common sense to be installed in the American people, instead you want more pointless restrictions, making things harder for law abiding citizens, and easier for black markets and corrupt government.

This is obvious bait. Regardless, a musket was a military weapon at the time. So were cannons, which the supreme court ruled can be lawfully owned by the militia.

gobeaniggersomewhereelse

they would have been awesome with citizens owning assault rifles and would have traded their left nut for that future

SA-GE

Does the second amendment say we have the right to bear muskets? No it doesnt dipshit. It says we have the right to bear arms.

>Does this look like a musket to you?
No, that's an assault rifle, like the ones our government has.
>the second amendment was written in 1776
When the government had muskets and we had muskets. Gotcha. Point wasn't muskets, it was being able to overthrow government if they get out of line.
>Now, you honestly want to tell me that the second amendment should apply to modern guns?
Yes because point of second amendment isn't the gun, it's having a means of overthrowing government. in 1776 they had muskets and we fought them with muskets. In 2018 they have assault rifles, and we can fight them with assault rifles.
>But muh stealth fighter jets and tanks
Britfags had much better artillery and ships then US during revolutionary war. We just needed to be able to fight them on the ground. Same as today.

Arms ment muskets, grayon eating literal retard

sage this nigger

Not this talmudic legalism again.

The 2nd Amendment isn't a musket license dumbass,
it's a means to overthrow the (((government))) when it fails.

now GTFO, you gotta rehearse the next school shooting. Don't forget your lines shlomo

Those who avoid and evade the reason for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would surely admit that if Lithuania had a Second Amendment, Mikhail Gorbachev violated it on March 22,1990 — Russian troops seized arms from the Lithuanian militia. Or was "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" actually violated two days earlier, when Premier Gorbachev ordered private citizens to turn in their hunting and competition guns to the Russian army within one week "for temporary safekeeping" or have them confiscated and their owners imprisoned? Or was "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" initially violated many years before, when the people were first prohibited from possessing guns without permission of government and laws were passed requiring every gun to be registered? In fact, the Soviet Constitution guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms, and Lithuania is part of the Soviet Union — or so Gorbachev contends. But obviously the Soviet government pays no more attention to that constitutional freedom guarantee than do the majority of the U.S. Government, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, or CBS and the Washington Post. What is the difference, precisely, between the confiscation of private firearms in Lithuania and the confiscation ordered by S. 166, the Graves bill? What is the difference, precisely, between the registration law in Lithuania — which makes confiscation possible — and the registration of military-style firearms required by California's Roberti-Roos bill, which went into effect January 1,1990. What is the difference, precisely, between Lithuania's law prohibiting the people from owning military-style firearms and the so-called "assault rifle" bans?

I wish I had the cash to buy an HK417 and a SCAR17

I wish i had the patience to get any gun, i also don't know how i feel about some dick showing up whenever he wants to make sure it's in the safe.

>that filename

>some dick showing up whenever he wants to make sure it's in the safe.
How often does that really happen?
I know people get letters about tv licenses but I never hear about gun check ups.

Maybe if you guys lightened up on guns and tvs you could do something about the rape gangs.

My grandfather had guns for years and he'd be there at least once a week. He was a family friend though, retired now, dude's a millionaire.

Obesity kills more peeps. Fuck off shill

>All they had were muskets.
False, they also had pistols, throwing axes, warships (yes, equipped with cannons), and crude bombs.
>There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having military style assault weapons
>Conveniently forgets that the military of the time was a conglomerate of civilian militias, with each member bringing the majority of their own equipment including their gun.

Fuck off.

In the words of the modern day soyboy and liberal niggers...

>woke

>the second amendment was written in 1776, long before we had assault rifles or any kind of modern weaponry.
Yet they could own a ship with a battery of cannons that could level an entire coastal village. Nice try. Fuck off.

Don't forget how our early naval defense was provided for mainly by privateers, since we had no ships-of-the-line.

This is actually inaccurate. If you can finance it, you can build your own private warplane, warship, etc. However, you have to build it all on your own, as in develop it from the ground up. The richest person in the world can afford it.

Does this look like a thread to you? Because it's not.
In case none of you realized it, this thread has been being reposted with the same fucking picture, long before I've even actively noticed I'm sure. All OP has is bait. Now, you honestly want to tell me that Sup Forums can't figure this out? I'm not buying it.

>2A is for muskets
>Text used is "arms"
Whoops there goes your whole argument.

At the time the 2nd amendment was written, it was legal for a citizen to privately own a full-size war ship.

Do not reply to spammed b-tier bait threads.
Report them.

No law abiding citizen needs an Assault Rifle 15

/thread

it actually goes in options. Tired of these same shill threads every day.

see

Lets be generous and say the us military has 10 million guns, the general populace have more than 30 times that. I dont think the fact that the military has automatic weapons make much of a difference in this scenario.

Muskets were military weapons when the declaration was written. They wanted civilians to have the same weapons as the military back then. Why would that be any different today?
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

>you don't need weapons capable of over overthrowing the government to overthrow the government

wat

Well Regulated Militia

...

fpbp

In the eighteenth century private citizens (privateers) owned warships. The Founding Fathers would have been fine with the private possession of full-auto anything you like.

That breakfast does not appear to be well regulated....

Witnessed

Ban guns and the police are no longer a legitimate authory. If the citozens have no acces to arms, neither should the government.

Last I checked our government is against me owning a gimped out ar 15 semi auto m4 look alike, but give away full auto military rifles and belt fed machine guns and grenades and shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile lainchers to terrorists and drug dealers. Police arm illegal aliens and gangs by selling their police turn in pistols.

bumped bc fpbp